So, let's see. You used to call yourself a liberal. But things changed after 9/11, and now you're not sure what to call yourself anymore. Try "neo-neocon" on for size.

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

I was rummaging around the house where I'm staying, looking for something to read, when I encountered an old favorite from my childhood, choreographer Agnes De Mille's memoir And Promenade Home.

While skimming through it, I came across a passage in which De Mille, a newlywed whose husband has gone off to fight World War II (he was to remain abroad for the two remaining years of the war but returned unharmed), describes some of the conversations she endured at social events during her long wait:

For dark, personal reasons, many people could not resist this chance at cruelty. There were the intellectuals who demanded aggressively if we believed in war and asked across our dinner tables did we relish the idea of being the widows of dead heroes? There were men of peace who fulminated against destruction and argued that no idea was worth fighting for that leveled Casino or Dresden....There were the newscasters who, after the fourth Martini, swore with something akin to professional pride that the war would last another eight years....

52 Comments:

well not really. In the USA anti war feeling was widespread until pearl harbour. In Europe various attitudes could be seen in reaction to the nazis...But the Germany and Japan behaved much worse than anything we have had from AQ or the rest. To mix these two up is lazy thinking.

For someone who demands clear thinking and abhors the MSM you clutch at every possible straw going to support the war in Iraq.

At what point may you consider it is not a rerun of WW2 and a bit of a mistake? Or does this not exist as you will always find a new purpose...

conned conned conned -- neo is drawing from nearly a primary source -- and you from your opinion? [again]

For dark, personal reasons, many people could not resist this chance at cruelty. There were the intellectuals who demanded aggressively if we believed in war and asked across our dinner tables did we relish the idea of being the widows of dead heroes?

I’ve been worrying about the same conversation I had this week with colleagues, worrying only in the back of my mind because if comforted by members of the promotion or merit committee I can brush it off as an ambiguous remark and spin it back to their liking, but to the conversation – one was with a professor in history and the other in geography (the latter who is famous for the hot flaring pod cast sessions he does with American students and students in Palestine) anyway, and I try not to do reveal my political opinions but it did happen twice, I said “…war is with humanity – there will always be wars and mass killings of people. It’s simply a part of the human condition. I don’t will it. I don’t wish it. I want to believe that humanity will one day live in peace and civility.” The response from the history professor was, “but we are evolving beyond war…” and “how could any loving father send his son to war if he is not drafted.” and from the Geography professor, “How about I drop a thermonuclear bomb on you.” Was it as if I invented war? It’s a sorrowful and disdainful look they give and the conservative shifts. To me there seems to be too much theory and almost no perspective on practice – practice outside of artificial environments. As the trolls like to say, “It’s complex”. And yes it is. It’s a combination of intellectual sloth, government subsidized sheltering – an in-crowd comfort zone, a Berlin bunker of sorts – a fantasy land to enjoy that last fading shot of morphine before the world burns away.

Conned is a good example of the winning strategy against terroists. Never give up, never give them an inch or a milimeter to breath, never give them any chance to feel safe or at peace. Always be at their heels, night and day, month through month. Hound them, until they lie breathless on the streets from fear and exhaustion.

This is how you defeat terroists.

It may indeed be interesting Neo, but not very surprising to me. Studying Wake Island, Pearl Harbor fiasco, and other WWII, Civ War, and Revolutionary War incidents has prepared me for the worst in history. It is a valuable lesson, that nostalgia is just that, nostalgia. It is not an objective or even accurate portrayal of what actually happened.

All wars in the past, had their problem. It is not just we, here today, that experience everything for the first time. Everything humanity has done or experienced, has been done in one variation or another in the past by our ancestors. It is pure hubris to think otherwise, for humanity to experience new things humanity would have to evolve beyond the limits we have operated under for thousands of years.

you reckon that is true yrmdwnkr? How did the Irish terrorists get defeated. These were the terrorists many US citizens supported while they blew up pubs in Birmingham and killed an dinjured innocent people at funerals. But it does not happen any more...do you know why? Go and read about it.

Ah the little apple thief is giving out lessons in history.

Well you find me some evidence that the US was all for fighting Hitler from Sep 1939, or earlier, and I might start to say I am wrong.

and if you can find any evidence for this nonsense

It’s a combination of intellectual sloth, government subsidized sheltering – an in-crowd comfort zone, a Berlin bunker of sorts – a fantasy land to enjoy that last fading shot of morphine before the world burns away.

"Well you find me some evidence that the US was all for fighting Hitler from Sep 1939, or earlier, and I might start to say I am wrong."

That's a typical statement from the America-haters located in Britain and Oz.

Sheeit - conman, show us some evidence that BRITAIN was all for fighting Hitler before Sept. 3 1939! Except for Winston Churchill, the majority in England was for talk-talk, appease-appease - right up until the Nazi's invaded Poland in direct defiance of the British and French.

It could be argued that the main cause of Hitlers rise to power was the result of the draconian measures meted out to a defeated Germany at the end of WWI - measures taken by Britain and France against the advice of the Wilson administration.

But to you lot, it's always America's fault. Nevermind that until Dec 11 1941, Hitler wasn't really America's problem. America was, after all, three thousand miles away, had been told unceremoniously to "butt out", and was dealing with it's own little problem located on the other side of the planet in the Pacific basin.

And considering that in 1941, America's largest ethnic group was German, you and the world are damn lucky that she didn't act like you lot would have and come in on the other side. (Bar bet - In WWII, who was the most successful German General and the most successful German Admiral? Answer - Dwight Eisenhower and Chester Nimitz.)

It was Britain and France, after all, who refused to step on the little cockroach when he could be stepped on. Nope, Britain and France kept talking and talking and appeasing and appeasing until the little bastard got well and truly out of hand.

And then the little connman from Oz says that America was remiss for not fighting Hitler before they themselves decided to fight Hitler.

Interesting, yes. And not just because the sentiments sound so drearily familiar -- even more interesting, and pertinent, is that opening line: "For dark, personal reasons, many people could not resist this chance at cruelty."

Cruel and malevolent motives, of course, can be found in some abundance at both ends of the political spectrum, but there's something particularly nasty and revolting about the combination of cruelty and sanctimony, however common that combination may be. Then, it was intellectuals, pacifists, and "newscasters" who, in the safety that others were fighting to protect, sought to hide from their bad conscience by inflicting their cynicism and self-righteousness on everyone around them; now, it's ... much the same.

well HMSwnkerer i wasn't trying to make some point about britain being so great or some "anti-american" point. This just reflects your own rather limited understanding of the debate. But to you lot, it's always America's fault. somewhat surprisingly when ww2 started people in britain were not blaming america. It never occured to them. Hoping they would help, yes. And when they did were eternally grateful. Without the soviet union and the usa Britain would, eventually have been beaten.

Look up the word Reify and then think why all your comments about countries are sily.

as for the rest....oh hum

1. Yes the t of versailles was stupid but after the vast numbers of dead it is not difficult to understand why vengeance got the upper hand.

2. And yes this is part of Hitler's rise to power. Part.... anti-communism drove a fair bit, as did anti-semitism. After all your Germans were not all unwilling followers of yrmdHitler. Some people are all up for violence, and are easy to persuade that anyone disagreeing with a militaristic government is a traitor.....sound familiar?

3. And the US never joined the League of Nations and therefore contributed - along with many others to its weakness.

are you sure about this?

And considering that in 1941, America's largest ethnic group was German, you and the world are damn lucky that she didn't act like you lot would have and come in on the other side.

yeah right...well how nmany ethnic germans were there?.... hmmmm don't quite know where to start with it....are you sure you don't want to take that point back...I mean it is a bit dumb.

To be honest I think the point I want to make more than any other on this topic is that it is immoral, I repeat immoral of you neo-cons to try hijack ww2 to justify your tawdry liitle process of empire building. This is not (i repeat for the ten millionth time) anti-american, it is anti-you bloodthirsty keyboard warriors, with your black and white, us good you bad, boring, repetitive and dull defence of a bunch of increasingly ineffective, irrelevant and unpopular military policies. - now that is what i call a rant. :-)

on and yrmdwnkr thanks for this quote you can guarantee it will get a regular slot on here

It is not about evidence, it is about psychological and emotional shock.

with you it is not about evidence it is about whichever comuter game you were playing last.

I believe Neo was simply pointing out that in a war where it was so clear who and what the enemy was once the war was full swing, you still have those who will reflexively be against war, no matter the cost, and who will be cruel and self-righteous in their reflex.

The US was isolationist, yes, but not monolithically and came by it naturally. It had been our stance to stay out of "petty" European conflicts since the beginning of this Republic. Why do you think we stayed out of WWI so long? We were waiting for oil discoveries in Europe? It amazes me how we are always monolithic, when it serves the argument, while Europeans are always so diverse and, dare I say it?, nuanced.

As for the Irish-American support of the IRA, most Irish came here during the Potato Famine where Irish starved as the English looked on. After 800 years of cruel occupation, maybe even Irish-Americans wanted the English out. I think it was wrong to support the IRA, but I do understand the reasons for it.

As for the "you didn't join until Pearl Harbor", what the hell were our ships doing going back-and-forth to Britain in long supply lines to keep Britain alive? We were "neutral" weren't we? And, no it wasn't very profitable. Had Pearl not happened, the sinking of USCG cutters or USN ships by U-boats would have put us in the war.

Hmsconqueror, you put it well. As soon as Europeans get their wars going, we are supposed to jump in or shame on us. And they of course are always so pure of heart and noble of purpose...Anyone want some oil-for-food?

Ok I take your justification of Irish support of the IRA, but you try explaining that to people whose relatives were murdered by them. Now apply that idea to say Palestinian terrorists. Yes suicide bombing civilians is despicable but it is possible to see what is driving them. this kind of stuff simply creates more recruits. The trick is to find a way to defuse it. To this end it is worth examining when terrorism has been defeated. Ireland makes an interesting example. It is not perfect, far from it, but the letter, nail, parcel, pub, and mortar bombings have stopped. How? by long drawn out talking. Dull? yes. Does not appeal to the likes of yrmdwnkr and his fantasy violence, but, eventually it worked. I would suggest sa serious attempt at achieving the same in the middle east. Fort a start a two state solution to Israel-Palestine.

also as for this; As for the "you didn't join until Pearl Harbor", what the hell were our ships doing going back-and-forth to Britain in long supply lines to keep Britain alive? We were "neutral" weren't we? And, no it wasn't very profitable. Had Pearl not happened, the sinking of USCG cutters or USN ships by U-boats would have put us in the war. I never argue that the US were not helping or whatever. I was simply reacting to childish comments about the motivation of Britain.

Let us all recognise that

1. The Allies bet Hitler an dthis was a good thing.

2. In all countries there were voices who favoured Hitler, wanted to make a deal with him or whatever. In Britain Lord Halifax was one such. If he had been PM i dread to think what might have happened.

This post has been edited heavily to shorten it to the relevant parts about the IRA. I did a longer version at my blog (link's at bottom), which gives you the links to all the articles I found as well as additional quotes and comments.

Yes suicide bombing civilians is despicable but it is possible to see what is driving them.

Um, what happened to the "why don't you try explaining to an Israeli child and woman that it is understandable"?

Ok I take your justification of Irish support of the IRA, but you try explaining that to people whose relatives were murdered by them.

Some people just don't know how to use logic. So Conned is objecting to Ariel's explanation of why she "understands" (not supports or justifies) Irish support of the IRA, because it is difficult to explain this to people who relatives were murdered by the IRA. But when Conned applied this to the Palestinians, then the problem and difficulty is with figuring out how to defuse it via talk. Conned doesn't apply things on a 1 to 1 ratio.

One of the things most people don't know about the IRA problem, is that it was actually a way to defend against a rival terroist organization, namely the Protestant Orangemen death squads that went into Irish communities to kill, much as Zarqawi goes into Sunni and Shia communties and chops up the children and put their heads into baskets intended for their mothers to see and smell.

Britain tried to send peacekeepers, namely the SAS, to quell the problem. The British Army, police, local paramilitary loyalist police, and the SAS were all focused more on crushing the uppity Irish than dealing with the legitimate security needs of the Irish.

The British are a mercurial people. One moment they are weak, appeasement orientated, and then they are full out waging Total War bombing Dresden via Bomber Harry. In this sense, they are sorta like American Alpha version 7.8x. Alpha versions, being inherently unstable.

Remember, it was the British that wanted Versailles, along with the French, because of their thirst for revenge. Don't be so surprised when the British execute an innocent civilian and then tries to cover it up.

Here is the timeline as I see it. The IRA was formed to defend against British and British-Ulster loyalist's unlawful executions. The IRA then became more extreme, as their thirst for violence, revenge, and death consumed them. With a lot of help from the British. When the British stepped up the retaliation killings, ambushes, and death squad executions, the IRA realized that this kind of death and terrorism did not fullfill the original goal of the IRA, to protect Irish communities from Ulster and British repression.

The extreme nature of IRA terrorism and rebellion, would have started drying up American-Irish support. Someone, in Sinn Fein, decided that negotiation and diplomacy would benefit them more than continued British retaliation executions and deaths. The IRA, as extreme and violent as they were, were no match against the SAS.

For anyone that's serious about comparisons between the IRA and the islamists, let's note some crucial distinctions:

- as vicious as the IRA, in any of its forms, was, it never, as a rule, attempted to maximize slaughter and destruction -- instead, it often phoned in warnings of bombings to give enough time to evacuate;

- none of its forms or offshoots was hostile to Western civilization as such -- instead, all were focused on particular issues and specific grievances;

- peace was won by defeating the IRA in its central objective of uniting Ireland with Northern Ireland by force -- instead, through being worn down by attrition, the IRA has decided to change its tactics for achieving this objective from terrorism to persuasion and democracy;

- this peace was won through the militarization of the conflict on the part of the British, who wore down the IRAs by various forms of attack and defense, not through "talking".

The lessons:

- in the first place, we should do the right thing, whatever that is, regardless of threats or attacks;

- we should never confuse threats or attacks with "arguments", which we suddenly find persuasive when we didn't before;

- ANY objectives of those threatening or attacking us should therefore NOT be met at least until those undertaking such actions cease, lest we reward mere thuggery.

Compared to the Irish "troubles", Iraq is simply one small theater in a much larger and longer-termed conflict -- it's an example of one kind of tactic, as were particular British actions during the long wearing-down period, but, like the British in Northern Ireland, military tactics by no means exhaust the range of options being used.

Everyone has a weakness. The IRA's weakness was that they cared about protecting the Irish. The weakness of the terroists is that they care about going to heaven, and that their backers care about not being toppled and killed.

Bush won't use pigs as a psychological weapon, and therefore the military is taking more than their fair share of casualties. No enemy is afraid of nothing, everyone has something they are afraid of, something that will make them stop in fearful paralysis. Finding it is a goal the President of the United States need not research, because he already knows what the terroists are afraid of, he just doesn't care to make them afraid because Bush is a compassionate conservative.

There's a lot of conservatives, and while I'm a classical liberal, I tend to believe that neither I nor conservatives like Ace have one iota of compassion for terroists or Baathist insurgents.

I don't quite get the comparison of the IRA (or the ETA, Corsican sepratists, Balkan Ethnic Group of the Week, etc.) to Islamic terrorists. These groups use violence as a tool in the toolbox of possibilities to win one for their side. Destruction of the enemy is not a goal in and of itself. They want home rule, and if they succeed, then the reason for being for these organizations vanishes, and the rebel attacks stop.

As far as a two state solution, pay attention to the map of Palestine that is usually shown. Where's Israel? Nowhere - the elongated diamond of land is all Palestine. If Israel consisted of one city block, Palestinians would still clamor for the "lost homeland". Why are Palestinians naming their sons Hitler at a large rate? Why is the nuking of Israel the first goal of Iran if it gets its bomb? Why do they so much love to dress their little children as terrorists? They don't want a homeland as much as they want to destroy the Jewish one.

The IRA doesn't want to take all of Britain, doesn't want to nuke London, it wants to make all of the island of Ireland the Irish Republic, then stop. But not at the cost of their children en masse, or the ruination of Ireland and the Irish. They never would contemplate tieing their children's hands together and have them run through a minefield as human mine sweeps, like terrorist Iran.

I think some people believe that America is guilty of funding or supporting the IRA, so we have no right to take to task other people who fund or support the Palestinian terroists or Iraq terroists.

I make the note that the IRA was facing British guns, tanks, assassination squads, and death squads yet the IRA laid down their arms. So if the Palestinian excuse is to say that the Israelis have guns and superior technology, then the Palestinians are just full of shit as well as anyone that parrotes that excuse.

oh my god you lot have lost it now. A quick game of "good terrorist bad terrorist" anyone?

The IRA were a bunch of violent drug dealing criminals. Ditto the various Loyalist bastards who told the people of Ireland they were fighting for them while spreading murder everywhere. The bloody parachute regiment and the SAS, who were not designed for peace making made things worse by "targetted" assassinations...sound familiar?...which provoked more trouble.

But not for you yankocentric idiots. It can only be viewed through an american prism. I hads to live through the above shambles and remember very well the endless mayhem.....what sorted out? Talking Boring, endless, seemingly trivial talking. While the psychopaths on all sides called the talkers "traitors" and called for more violence.

Confudeforeigner, I see your back.Regarding racist links:You'll have to google these but the Gaurdian ran a story regarding "Mein Kampf" being a best seller in Turkey (2005) and the Telegraph on it as a best seller in the Palestinian territories(2002). Such racist papers. Also check out the UN "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People", Nov. 29, 2005. Oddly, the large map used at the event had no Israel and Hamas has used the same map consistently, both reported by the racist AP. While I didn't care for the particular links, you should look before leaping (to conclusions). There are some Palestinian Arabs named "Hitler" but I draw no conclusions from that, it could be Arabic for Harold as far as I know. How was your trip?

Neoneconned: You should, as a Canadian, understand that WWII is the last war nearly all Americans can agree on. In discussing the validity of a war and the nature of an "enemy", WWII will always come up, it's a search for common ground. No one is hijacking it, ok maybe someone out there is, but Neo wasn't.

I tend to react strongly to criticism, implied or otherwise, of American motivation prior to and during WWII. No offense intended. Personally, I believe we should all be ashamed of allowing Japanese aggression in Asia from 1931 on.

As for the IRA, if you wrote "many US citizens supported" you are quite mistaken. Just the opposite, it was as a rule isolated to a portion of the Irish-American community, granted a large community. I found the IRA methods, as well their rhetoric, disgusting. If I could find a stronger word I would. There is a human fascination with the rebel, the underdog, or the "weak" fighting back which I do not share.

I believe it remains to be seen how vicious the nature of these Islamototalitarians (or whatever term you prefer to separate them out) may be. If the society of the Taliban is an example, it well may rival.

As for talking, both sides have to be amenable and agreeable. I believe Ireland exerted "pressure" on the IRA to be "agreeable"? Arab nations would have to exert the same pressure. I don't see that at this juncture. Suffering will continue in Hadrian's "Palestine" until a two-state solution is embraced by all sides and parties.

Suffering will continue in Hadrian's "Palestine" until a two-state solution is embraced by all sides and parties.

Now all you need to do is persuade neo and all theother knee jerk anti-palestinians that there is a possible non-military solution and that it requires talking.

as for ww2 I think people on all sides try to hijack it as it is an example of a clearly moral war and tehre are so few.

IRA support in US, well you will know better than me as I was not in the US in the seventies. I was always left with the impression of strong support NORAID and all that lot but I could well be wrong. However it is interesting watching people trying to defend the IRA while condemning contemporary terrorism.

As a general guideline violence is to be avoided. If you have to do it then do it, but remember that it has unintended consequences.

I wish I could be pithy or at the least concise Worry not. I disagree with most of what you say but it is well expressed. To see unpithy comments try yrmdwnkr....or sometimes me :-)

as for ww2 I think people on all sides try to hijack it as it is an example of a clearly moral war and tehre are so few.

It is moral for Conned based upon one criteria. Canada fought in it, so it must be moral. The other criteria was, the war was to save Europe from its own embarassment, it must therefore be moral. Any other wars, like freeing oppressed former British colonialists in Iraq, that's not moral.

Ariel: I believe it remains to be seen how vicious the nature of these Islamototalitarians (or whatever term you prefer to separate them out) may be. If the society of the Taliban is an example, it well may rival.

"remains to be seen"? "It well may rival"? What, the IRA? I'm sorry, was the IRA stoning women for adultery? Publicly executing women in soccer stadiums? Hanging teenage boys for homosexuality? Deliberately destroying immense and unrecoverable artifacts of world culture? Forcing women to remain in ignorance and in private all their lives (in private unless covered head to foot)? Hijacking airliners full of people in order to run them full speed into the most concentrated mass of humanity they could find? Etc. Et-bloody-cetera.

Look, the IRA (or rather the various IRAs) were a vicious bunch of terrorists, there's no doubt, and were brought to heel only recently by a sustained and militarized determination to stand up to them, not by "talk", which they would and did simply laugh at. But, bad as they were, they had not a patch on the deep-dyed evil of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Iranian mullahs, and their legions of supporters throughout the Islamic world -- an evil that no amount of cultural relativism will excuse or apologize for.

Ariel, I largely agree with your views and judgements, and where I don't I think we could debate issues to our mutual benefit. (And I too would like to be more pithy and concise.) But I'd say to be careful of trying to appear "reasonable" to those who are only trying to bait the unwary -- they don't call themselves trolls for nothing.

2. I was making a link between the situation in Ireland and that in Palestine. The Taliban are way out there with A Q and the other extremists who are probably beyond talks and need to be marginalised by talking to those who will. I would argue that Hamas etc. will, eventually be amenable to a settlement.

3. You overestimate the impact of military action against the IRA. At times it clearly made things far worse. The British army eventually developed very subtle tactics to control the streets of Belfast. These went beyond the gung ho nonsense of the early seventies which caused so many problems - and which we are seeing replicated in Iraq. Armies are not really the right tool for peaceaking but the British Army had a long time to learn some techniques. Not perfect by any means but...

The truth is that There will never be an Israeli or palestinian military victory - or rather it is very unlikely. So the only option is talking. The US should support this and encourage israel into talks. The Palestinians should also be 'encouraged'.

Not as much fun as simplistic "shoot 'em all let God decide" staeents, but hey welcome to the real world.

...oh and there is a prize for the first one to say this means I am a terrorist sympathiser.

The British are masters of shoot them all and let God decide, so don't get hoodwinked into trusting the Brits take on the IRA.

A number of former SAS men were speaking out as loyalist terrorist Ken Barrett was beginning the shortest life sentence ever for the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane.

Barrett and other members of the UDA and UFF were used by British intelligence and the RUC Special Branch to kill republican figures and sympathisers.

One ex-SAS soldier said: "They had to turn to these guys because we were not prepared to do their dirty work and most of the time, they killed the wrong people.

"Innocent people were murdered because of orders from the very highest level.

"We knew that at some time the British Government and the IRA would have to sit down at the table and sort things out.

"There was total panic when we gave them our answer. We told them: 'We will not be pulling any triggers. We are soldiers, not a death squad'."

The SAS commanders were 100 percent behind the decision because they knew that they, too, would have faced prosecution. But the SAS men revealed that they did keep a very close watch on the men on the death list, hoping to get a reason to shoot or arrest them.

It is more complex than shoot them all and let god sort them out, you gotta avoid prosecution too!

You should get your money back for that assertiveness training Sally. It was all a cruel joke.

The statement clearly reveals her true intent and her childlike inability to view muslims as people just like anyone else.

In her mind the islamic extremists tar the whole population, but she's quite happy to be led by mass murderers on her own side of the great religious divide. No wonder she cheers the slaughter of children.

Sally,I was speaking of rivalling the Nazi's and the Japanese militarists. Specifically the militarists, the bayonet practice in Nanking was on babies and children. And that wasn't all...Unfortunately, all this cross-talk can lead to confusion.Neooneconned,Common ground, disagreement, and clarity work. What I don't care for from anyone, is labeling and name-calling as I have a strong gag reflex. It seems to be toning down, and that is good.

Common ground, disagreement, and clarity work. What I don't care for from anyone, is labeling and name-calling as I have a strong gag reflex. It seems to be toning down, and that is good.

which is fair enough. If you catch me being horrible to you just tell me to shut up - i respond to such action. But you try arguing with some people on here without name calling - well it wouldn't be the same, honestly. Some of it has a kind of poetic rhythm to it.

When I thought you were comparing islamist global terrorism with that of the IRA, my point was just that they're quite different, for a number of reasons, and that the attempt to portray them as similar is usually done as a means of minimizing or dismissing the islamist threat. It puzzled me, in the context of your other remarks, that you would want to do that, and I see that I should have paid more attention to my own question.

"But the Germany and Japan behaved much worse than anything we have had from AQ or the rest."

Easy to say now. Would you have said it in February 1933? 1932? 1931? 1930?

Perhaps, but it's difficult to figure with certainty. How long should one wait before confronting evil? Where is the proverbial line in the sand? We can talk about all we like, making it sport; making the actual decisions is a touch more difficult and unsure.

The point that should be made is that Japan and Germany was worse because they had more resources and power, and they had more resources and power because good men stood by and did nothing. Or in France's case, men sided with the Nazis and shipped out the Jews in return for favored status.

If not today, moght they someday? Do they wish to? Have they before? Afghanistan rings a bell.

Besides, as usual your careless reading fails to address the actual question- It's not if they're as bad as Germany and Japan ENDED UP being, what about before they got full blown mad? When could you have acted with justification?

About Me

I'm a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England. Surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon. My friends and family are becoming sick of what they see as my inexplicable conversion, so I've started this blog to give vent to my frustration. I have a Master's Degree in Marriage and Family Therapy, and my politics make me a pariah there, too. Little did I know that I moved in such politically homogeneous circles.
Why the apple? See this.